Jacksonville leaders: Vote no on property tax amendment

[Lunican]

The Florida Times-Union

January 6, 2008

Jacksonville leaders: Vote no on property tax amendment

By J. Taylor Rushing,
Capital Bureau Chief

TALLAHASSEE - Spanning 840 square miles and costing $959 million to govern, Duval County just might be ground zero after Floridians vote on the state's Jan. 29 property tax amendment.

So say Jacksonville city officials, who are in the politically precarious position of urging Northeast Florida voters to oppose an initiative that would lower property taxes and provide a variety of other related benefits. Mayor John Peyton, who last year unsuccessfully urged the county's legislative delegation not to send it to voters, has even reversed his decision not to actively campaign against it and plans to start speaking out at public events this week.

The city's mantra: Jacksonville's record of fiscal conservatism means its government desperately needs to hold onto the revenue it still has - so voters should be careful what they wish for.

Full Article:
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/010608/met_231925165.shtml.

[gatorback]

I think a $1.00 cigarette tax increase would help a lot.  1) increase revenue, and 2) keep kids from starting to smoke since they are the most cost sensitive to price increases

[RiversideGator]

Why would anyone possibly not vote to decrease their taxes?  I hardly want to throw more money at Peyton so he can waste it on his moronic pet projects and courthouse delays.  I say cut their funding and make government live within its means.  We can use the money better than they can.

[gradco2004]

Unfortunately... too many people depend on the services of the city that they could not afford by themselves. It is the greater effect of the cause that will compell people to vote no. I am sure the vote will be between the haves and the have nots.

[Not to mention the mis-guided "have nots" who do not know that saving $20/mo may result in the loss of their after school program for their kids ... so now they need to pay $100/week for childcare instead. Voter apathy may allow this thing to pass}

[gatorback]

Since I have not kids, I get to spend that $20/month downtown on Bay Street right?

[gradco2004]

Since I have not kids, I get to spend that $20/month downtown on Bay Street right?

Of course... If you don't use any of the services in jeopardy, it is not really in your interest to vote no --> unless you are worried about all of the kids without anything to do after school turning to crimes of boredom. I mean, I don't judge anyone on their decision. It is all about each and every persons own priorities. I'm a Democrat, so of course I LOVE taxes

[gatorback]

hahaha.  And I'm a Republican so the people in my circle of influence have their kids in private school and we don't pay taxes.

[second_pancake]

I'm a Democrat, so of course I LOVE taxes

hahaha.  And I'm a Republican so the people in my circle of influence have their kids in private school and we don't pay taxes.

And I'm an Independent, so my kids are home-schooled and I get a tax deductions

I have to admit I'm stuck with this one.  I own 2 houses here and the property taxes differ immensely from one another (1 being in Riverside, the other in Southside), so my initial thought is lower taxes.  But I do think of all the budget cuts that have taken place within the last few years and how that's affected everyone (crime being the largest area of concern), and then the extra $20 a month doesn't look so bad.  Don't know.  I'd have to do more research on this before I can come to any kind of educated opinion.

[RiversideGator]

Well, I have 6 properties in Riverside and Avondale only one of which was homesteaded just recently, so I am getting absolutely raped on my property taxes.  I probably pay $25,000 to $30,000 per year in property taxes including taxes for local schools which are so bad I will have to pay for private school tuition (about $15,000 per child per year) so my children do not have to endure them.  So much for the "rich" having things easy - not that I am rich.  The poor meanwhile dont own property so pay no property taxes, pay no income taxes and pay only a paltry amount in sales tax.  What a country...

BTW, if property taxes go up, I have to raise rent.  There is no free lunch and I have to pass on my costs.  This is something which the tax and spend liberal Democrats always fail to grasp.  Someone will pay for the "free" services they go around buying votes with.

[JeffreyS]

Isn't or governor a republican? Isn't this his plan? I am pretty conservative and hate taxes but hey credit where it is due.

[gatorback]

rg:  I wish I had your tax  bill.    Truely a problem, 6 properities, waaa, give them to me, I'll take that burden off your hand.

[vicupstate]

Well, I have 6 properties in Riverside and Avondale only one of which was homesteaded just recently, so I am getting absolutely raped on my property taxes.  I probably pay $25,000 to $30,000 per year in property taxes including taxes for local schools which are so bad I will have to pay for private school tuition (about $15,000 per child per year) so my children do not have to endure them.  So much for the "rich" having things easy - not that I am rich.  The poor meanwhile dont own property so pay no property taxes, pay no income taxes and pay only a paltry amount in sales tax.  What a country...

BTW, if property taxes go up, I have to raise rent.  There is no free lunch and I have to pass on my costs.  This is something which the tax and spend liberal Democrats always fail to grasp.  Someone will pay for the "free" services they go around buying votes with.

Gator, you yourself fail to 'grasp' your OWN contradiction.  First, you say that the poor, who rent, pay no property taxes.  Then you say that you 'pass on' the taxes you pay into the rent you charge.

Of course, YOU get to write off your tax payments and the 'renter' does not.  That's what the 'cut out all taxes and starve government' conservatives fail to grasp. 

The truth of the matter is that a renter does pay property taxes through there rent to the degree that the MARKET will allow.  For instance, just because my taxes go up $50 a month, doesn't mean that I can pass that entire amount on to the tenant.  In a tight market, such as exists now, it depends on the current or prospective tenant's willingness to pay it, versus renting something else.

So you see, the truth, as I am so fond of saying, is in the middle.   

Jax taxes are not high by any real standard.   You don't pay state income taxes, and the sales taxes are exempt on basic food items.  You also have homestead exemption.   And I say that as someone who pays taxes to Duval.

The state needs to let the cities and counties digest the already approved tax cuts, before placing more on their backs.  Peyton may be a lousy steward of the city's money, but this is a statewide measure.

 

[rbirds]

If you start looking through the details of this tax proposal you find that it is hardly the relief anyone was expecting and has an impact on services you wouldn't think would be affected.

Only your homesteaded property will see a tax reduction should the amendment pass.  All your other properties will see no reduction.  Calculating tax changes over time your tax reduction from current property tax will be a wash in about 5 years, assuming 3% property value increases each year -- hardly long-lasting relief.

If you look at the legislature's own analysis of the amendment's impact you'll see that public school funding will be reduced by an average of $500 million/year for the next 4 years -- $2 billion over 4 years.  Duval County will lose more than $15 million/year over the next 5 years. 

What does that mean for Duval schools?  The equivalent of one elementary school not being built per year, or two-thirds of a high school per year not being built.  Or financing the buildings but with no money left over to actually hire teachers.

The impact on per-pupil spending will be to take Florida down one more notch on the national scale of per-pupil funding.  Last I looked we were number 41 and this tax cut would allow us to replace Alabama as 42nd on the list.

On average each student would lose $240/academic year, matching virtually dollar-for-dollar what each homesteaded property owner would save each year.  Take a dollar out of the pocket of our children so we may put that dollar in our own pocket.

Not a trade I am interested in.

[RiversideGator]

Gator, you yourself fail to 'grasp' your OWN contradiction.  First, you say that the poor, who rent, pay no property taxes.  Then you say that you 'pass on' the taxes you pay into the rent you charge.

Au contraire vic.  I never said I rent to the poor.  My renters are mainly young people who are just getting started and who will earn more and more as they get older.  Riverside is sort of a youthful place and the renters reflect this.  Now, my tenants will be hit with rent increases if I have to pay more property taxes subject to what the market will bear.  This is a fact.  And, dont forget, I also have a significant tax bill on my personal residence in addition to the rental properties. 

Of course, YOU get to write off your tax payments and the 'renter' does not.  That's what the 'cut out all taxes and starve government' conservatives fail to grasp. 

I dont grasp this?  I am pretty sure I understand the tax implications actually.  The point is that the property taxes are too high across the board and are being squandered by our incompetent and corrupt local governments.

The truth of the matter is that a renter does pay property taxes through there rent to the degree that the MARKET will allow.  For instance, just because my taxes go up $50 a month, doesn't mean that I can pass that entire amount on to the tenant.  In a tight market, such as exists now, it depends on the current or prospective tenant's willingness to pay it, versus renting something else.

This is true.  The renters pay the property taxes through their rent indirectly.  The renters also pay my mortgages indirectly.  My point is the high property taxes actually harm their supposed beneficiaries in many cases - the poor tenants who have their rents increased to pay for them.  And, BTW, rents have been increasing at a healthy clip in Riverside.  They are up, in my experience, at least 30-40% since 2000. 

So you see, the truth, as I am so fond of saying, is in the middle.   

Actually no.  The truth is local government is incredibly wasteful and inefficient.  It doesnt do right the things it should do and it tries to do many more things than it should do.  It is a cancer which needs to be starved of its sustenance - tax revenue.  It is ironic that, in the 1910s and 1920s in a far lower tax environment, the city was able to develop very rapidly and had first rate infrastructure for its time.  This was probably because they only did roads, transit, parks, fire and police back then rather than today's City government which subsidizes mortgages for people who cant qualify for traditional mortgages, gives books to toddlers, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Jax taxes are not high by any real standard.   You don't pay state income taxes, and the sales taxes are exempt on basic food items.  You also have homestead exemption.   And I say that as someone who pays taxes to Duval.

The fact that other poor suckers elsewhere are paying more for taxes is not an argument that we are taxed just right.  Those guys deserve tax relief too.  BTW, a real solution would be to simply double or triple the homestead exemption.  This wouldnt benefit "rich" landlords but it would provide real relief to homeowners given the huge rise in property values since the last time the homestead exemption was set.

The state needs to let the cities and counties digest the already approved tax cuts, before placing more on their backs.  Peyton may be a lousy steward of the city's money, but this is a statewide measure.

Unfortunately, there are Peytons all across the state and nation.  We need less Peytons wasting money and more individual entrepreneurs investing their own money and growing the economy.

[RiversideGator]

If you start looking through the details of this tax proposal you find that it is hardly the relief anyone was expecting and has an impact on services you wouldn't think would be affected.

Only your homesteaded property will see a tax reduction should the amendment pass.  All your other properties will see no reduction.  Calculating tax changes over time your tax reduction from current property tax will be a wash in about 5 years, assuming 3% property value increases each year -- hardly long-lasting relief.

If you look at the legislature's own analysis of the amendment's impact you'll see that public school funding will be reduced by an average of $500 million/year for the next 4 years -- $2 billion over 4 years.  Duval County will lose more than $15 million/year over the next 5 years. 

What does that mean for Duval schools?  The equivalent of one elementary school not being built per year, or two-thirds of a high school per year not being built.  Or financing the buildings but with no money left over to actually hire teachers.

The impact on per-pupil spending will be to take Florida down one more notch on the national scale of per-pupil funding.  Last I looked we were number 41 and this tax cut would allow us to replace Alabama as 42nd on the list.

On average each student would lose $240/academic year, matching virtually dollar-for-dollar what each homesteaded property owner would save each year.  Take a dollar out of the pocket of our children so we may put that dollar in our own pocket.

Not a trade I am interested in.

Actually, just a 3% savings would save me about $270 per year.  Not too bad if you ask me.  And, since Duval County is losing or at least in stasis at present with regard to the number of students enrolled in public school, I dont think we even need a new school.  And anyway, I really dont want to hear the school board whine for another second about not having enough $$ for schools until they (1) sell their extravagant riverfront headquarters and (2) stop sending their members on vacations paid by the taxpayers.